Fun gun to shoot, but not one I would seriously consider owning if I had other alternatives.
Xavier seems to echo some of my reservations against this very popular brand of autoloader, especially in the lack-of-a-manual-safety department. This tends to be among the top three complaints against Glocks (the other two being their plastic frames, and the fact they are not a However, he puts an angle on it that I really hadn't thought of before:
I dislike the safety on the trigger. The whole idea seems silly to me. A gun ought not go off unless the trigger is pulled. So to make the gun safer through a mechanical means, it only follows that the mechanical safety be independent of the trigger.Sagely observation, if I do say so myself.
I will echo his respect for the firearm, though. They are reliable, and their modularity allows you to exchange certain parts between them if one breaks. And if a person shoots well with a Glock, more power to them.
But otherwise, nothing beats a H&K.
4 comments:
omg Vol!
A Glock 17 did it for me. Then discovered Springfield XD 45 was better to my liking. Wife gave me a Bersa 380 a nice concealable carry weapon. The last weapon I obtain seems to be the best shooter.
I like the Glocks, but I like my Sig 226 even better (although I'm not quite as accurate with it). Just got my concealed carry permit (Ohio) and bought a H&K P-2000 SK version 3 and I love it! Expensive but worth every penny. I'm a serious fan of the H&K's now.
Oh, sorry, one more thing. I don't think a gun should necessarily have a safety. People might be tempted to take more chances with it... play around or be less careful, whatever, depending on the safety to be infallible. I'd rather just teach people the rules of gun safety and encourage them to be sticklers for following those rules. Also they could become panicked in a stressful situation and forget or have trouble removing the safety. Just my opinion.
Post a Comment